Date: 2026-01-12Category: Not ApplicableState: Union GovernmentCountry: India
Issues and Challenges in Banking Supervision in the Digital Era (Speech by Shri Swaminathan J, Deputy Governor, Reserve Bank of India, on Friday, January 9, 2026, at the Third Annual Global Conference of the College of Supervisors, RBI, Mumbai)
**Executive Summary**
This document is a speech delivered by Shri Swaminathan J, Deputy Governor, Reserve Bank of India on January 9, 2026, at the Third Annual Global Conference of the College of Supervisors, RBI, Mumbai. The speech addresses the challenges and necessary changes in banking supervision within the digital era, focusing on adapting supervisory practices to evolving risks and technological advancements. The key message is the need for supervised entities and supervisors to strengthen operational resilience, data governance, and risk management in response to increasing digitalization.
**Key Points / Main Content**
* **Changing Risk Landscape in the Digital Age:**
* **Increased Speed:** Growth and stress can travel faster; risks can crystallize in hours.
* **Concentration and Interdependence:** Reliance on core service providers creates common exposure.
* **Growing Role of Algorithms:** Use of AI and machine learning requires accountability and explainability.
* **Expanded Threat Surface and Cyber Risk:** Increased points of entry necessitate resilience and recovery capabilities.
* **Conduct Risks in a Digital Wrapper:** Digital services can lead to mis-selling, data misuse, and customer harm.
* **Principles for Supervisory Response:**
* **Technology-Neutral, Risk-Based Supervision:** Focus on activities and risks, not technology.
* **Proportionality:** Supervisory approach must be risk-based and calibrated.
* **Clear Accountability:** Supervised entity remains accountable for activities conducted in its name.
* **Forward-Looking Supervision:** Spot weak signals early and test resilience before incidents.
* **New Supervisory Focus Areas:**
* Operational resilience and cyber readiness.
* Ecosystem and third-party dependencies.
* Governance of data, models, and AI.
* Technology-enabled, continuous supervision.
* **Enhanced Supervision Requirements:**
* Deeper engagement with boards on cyber governance and crisis playbooks.
* Near real-time cooperation among supervisors.
* Demonstrate governance and accountability of Al use.
* Supervisory vigilance, ecosystem-awareness, and outcome-focus.
* Stronger operational discipline and data governance throughout the year.
**Impact Analysis**
**Supervised Entities**
* **Impact:** Need to adapt to faster cycles, improve operational resilience, enhance third-party risk management, and ensure governance of Al and analytics.
* **Action Required:** Implement stronger operational discipline and data governance; improve oversight of partners; prepare for intensive supervisory questions on model risk, explainability, and fairness.
**Supervisors**
* **Impact:** Required to enhance skills in cyber, IT, data, and model expertise; adopt a more vigilant, ecosystem-aware, and outcome-focused approach.
* **Action Required:** Build the right mix of skills, adopt new technologies, and promote continuous improvement in supervisory methods.
**College of Supervisors**
* **Impact:** Central in building a shared supervisory language, practical comfort through casework and simulations, and the confidence to ask the right questions in new areas.
* **Action Required:** Focus on providing peer learning and training for supervisors.
Key Entities Referenced
Reserve Bank of India: The central bank of India, responsible for regulating the country's banking system.
College of Supervisors: An entity that provides training programmes, builds supervisory language, offers practical comfort through casework and simulations, and promotes peer learning in new areas.
SupTech: Technology used by supervisory authorities to identify patterns, detect anomalies, and focus attention on areas of most concern.
Mumbai: Location of the Third Annual Global Conference of the College of Supervisors.
Issues and Challenges in Banking Supervision in the Digital Era
(Speech by Shri Swaminathan J, Deputy Governor, Reserve Bank of India, on Friday, January 9, 2026,
at the Third Annual Global Conference of the College of Supervisors, RBI, Mumbai)
Respected Governor;
Deputy Governor, Shri S C Murmu;
Chairman, Academic Council, College of Supervisors, Shri Arijit Basu; and members
of the Academic Council of CoS
Director, CoS, Shri R. Subramanian;
Distinguished speakers, panellists and Managing Directors & CEOs of Regulated
Entities;
My fellow colleagues from RBI, Ladies and Gentlemen.
A very good morning to all of you. It is a pleasure to be with you today at the third
edition of the annual global conference of the College of Supervisors of the Reserve
Bank of India.
2. As we all know, banking is becoming more digital, more connected, and more
complex. So, I will use this opportunity to take this one step further and speak about
what “Supervision in the digital age” really means on the ground, for us and the
supervised entities. How our questions change? How our engagement will change,
and what we expect boards and management to demonstrate—before the next
incident tests the system!
What changes on the ground for supervisors?
3. Let me start with a simple thought. For decades, supervisors were trained to read
balance sheets and inspect processes. We still do that. But today, a bank can look
perfectly healthy on paper and still be one incident away from severe disruption. The
reason is that the centre of gravity is shifting from the “branch and product” to the
“pipes and code”. In other words, stability now depends as much on operational
resilience, data integrity, and third-party dependencies as much it does on capital and
liquidity.4. Therefore I would like to dwell upon how has the risk landscape changed in the
digital age:
a. The first is speed. In the digital world, both growth and stress can travel faster.
Customer acquisition can be exponential, but so can misinformation, panic, and
outflows. Risks that used to take weeks to build can now crystallise in hours. This
means supervisory feedback loops must tighten, with early triggers, faster follow-
up, and clear escalation.
b. Secondly, concentration and interdependence. Many institutions may rely on
the same core service providers, cloud platforms, payment rails, data vendors,
and cybersecurity tools. This creates a new form of common exposure. It is not
always visible in traditional financial ratios, but it is very real. For supervision, we
need to map dependencies more actively and assess concentration risk at the
ecosystem level, not only at the individual institution level.
c. Third is the growing role of algorithms. AI and machine learning are entering
credit underwriting, fraud detection, customer service, treasury, and even internal
control functions. This improves efficiency but also raises new questions of
accountability, explainability, and fairness. Supervisors need to be able to ask,
and entities need to be able to answer, a simple question: who owns the outcome
when a model drives a decision?
d. The fourth is an expanded threat surface and cyber risk. Digital banking
increases points of entry, and the adversary is no longer a random hacker. It is
often organised, well-funded, and persistent. Even when a bank’s internal
controls are strong, a weakness at a vendor, a partner, or a common technology
component can spill over. Resilience and recovery must be treated as core
capabilities.
e. Lastly and perhaps most importantly, there are conduct risks in a digital
wrapper. Digital lending, embedded finance, and platform-based distribution
have significantly improved access and convenience. But we have also seen
risks of mis-selling, opaque charges, aggressive recovery practices, and data
misuse. In a digital environment, customer harm can quickly become a
confidence issue, and that can quickly transform into a liquidity issue.
2How supervision must respond: principles before tools
5. Let me now turn to the supervisory response. We certainly need better tools, but we
must start with a few fundamental principles that keeps supervision grounded even as
technology evolves.
6. The first is technology-neutral, risk-based supervision. We should regulate and
supervise activities and risks, not technology brand names. Innovation will keep
changing. Our objectives do not and there is no real replacement to human judgement.
7. The second is proportionality. Not every institution has the same complexity,
systemic footprint, or technology maturity. The supervisory approach must be risk-
based, calibrated and proportional, but without lowering expectations for basic
controls, such as cybersecurity hygiene, data protection, and governance.
8. The third is clear accountability. Digital systems can diffuse responsibility
between bank, vendor, fintech partner, and so on and so forth. The supervisory
approach must be clear: the supervised entity remains accountable for activities
conducted in its name and on its rails.
9. The fourth principle is forward-looking supervision. In a fast-changing
environment, backwards-looking compliance checks are necessary but not sufficient.
We have to be able to spot weak signals early, test resilience before incidents occur,
and intervene before vulnerabilities become events.
New Supervisory Focus Areas
10. These principles are not new. What is new is the supervisory mindset we need
around them. Supervision must shift from periodic snapshots to continuous
awareness. It also needs to move beyond a single institution and take a sharper view
of its ecosystem. And finally, we need to move from asking only “did you comply?” to
also asking “can you withstand stress, recover quickly, and protect customers when
things go wrong?”
11. Let me translate that mindset into four supervisory focus areas that are
becoming central in the digital age:
(i) operational resilience and cyber readiness,
(ii) ecosystem and third-party dependencies,
3(iii) governance of data, models and AI, and
(iv) technology-enabled, continuous supervision, including better use of SupTech
and analytics.
Operational resilience and cyber readiness
12. The first shift is in how we view operational disruptions. In the past, operational
risk was often treated as a support function issue. In the digital world, it can become
the main event. A few hours of outage, a serious cyber incident, or a breakdown at a
key service provider can impair critical services.
13. This calls for deeper engagement with boards and senior management on
cyber governance, crisis playbooks, recovery capability, and learning from near-
misses. It also means simulations that test decision-making under pressure, not just
documentation.
Ecosystem and third-party dependencies
14. The second focus area is the ecosystem around the supervised entity. Critical
functions may be hosted by cloud providers, technology vendors, payment
intermediaries, outsourced service centres, fintech partners, and data service
providers. Collectively, the system can become exposed to a small number of common
points of failure.
15. The cross-border element adds another layer. Many providers operate globally,
and incidents do not respect jurisdictional lines. The global IT outage in July 2024 is
a useful reminder. The lesson is not about any one firm, but about how quickly third-
party incidents can transmit disruption at scale, including to well-run institutions. This
calls for near real-time cooperation among supervisors.
Governance of data, models, and AI
16. The third focus area is the rise of data-driven decision-making, including AI.
From a supervisory standpoint, the question is not whether a bank uses AI. The
question is whether it can demonstrate governance and accountability around its use.
17. Two issues deserve particular attention. One is reliance on vendor models and
embedded tools, in which the institution may use the output without fully understanding
the underlying engine. The second is fairness and unintended exclusion, where data
4proxies can produce outcomes that appear efficient but are unacceptable. Governance
is what allows innovation to scale safely.
Technology enabled continuous supervision
18. The fourth focus area is the supervisory transformation itself. If banking is
becoming always-on, supervision cannot remain episodic. This requires on-site and
off-site teams to work more closely together, to pick up early signals and for faster
follow-up.
19. SupTech can help supervisors identify patterns early, detect anomalies, and
focus attention where it matters most. But data quality and data governance remain
critically important. With better data quality and right analytics, supervisors can
increasingly connect dots across silos.
A sharper customer lens: grievance redress as an early warning indicator
20. Before I conclude, let me add one more point: customer service and grievance
redress.
21. In a digital environment, a weak grievance system is not a minor irritation. It is
often an early warning. From a supervisory angle, we need to look not only at whether
a bank has a grievance framework, but at how it performs. Are complaints resolved on
time? Do institutions identify root causes and close them, or do they only manage
closures on paper? Do boards see a clear dashboard of complaint trends, repeat
failures, and customer pain points? And, is there a proactive and swift remediation?
22. A mature digital financial system does not have zero complaints. Instead, it
learns and fixes quickly, and customers can get fair outcomes without running from
pillar to post.
Conclusion
23. Let me conclude by summing up what the digital age means for supervised
entities and their supervisors.
24. For supervised entities, three messages are important.
(i) First, compliance cannot be treated as a quarter-end activity. With faster cycles,
banks will need stronger operational discipline and data governance throughout
5the year. When an anomaly is flagged, the ability to explain it and fix it quickly
becomes a marker of control maturity.
(ii) Second, third-party management must be treated as risk management.
Institutions will need better oversight of partners, clearer accountability for
incidents, and contracts that support audit, access, and resilience. The regulated
entity cannot outsource responsibility.
(iii) Third, as AI and analytics become more embedded, institutions should be
prepared for more intensive supervisory questions on model risk, explainability,
and fairness.
25. For supervisors, the bar is also rising. We need to remain rooted in the basics
while also becoming more familiar with new risk areas. That means building the right
mix of skills, including cyber, IT, data, and model expertise, alongside core prudential
judgement.
26. This is where the role of College of Supervisors becomes central. The College
is not only about training programmes. It is about building a shared supervisory
language, practical comfort through casework and simulations, and the confidence to
ask the right questions in new areas.
27. The College also has a broader role as a platform for peer learning, particularly
with supervisors from the Global South. Many jurisdictions are navigating similar
challenges: rapid digitalisation, first-time customers, platform-based delivery, and fast-
changing threat landscapes. Sharing practical experience on what works and what
does not is one of the quickest ways to raise supervisory effectiveness.
28. Finally, capacity building is not a one-time effort. Technology and business
models will continue to evolve. Threat actors will keep adapting. Our training and
supervisory methods must continue to grow as well.
29. Let me conclude. In the digital era, supervision must remain prudent but also
become more vigilant, more ecosystem-aware, and more outcome-focused. The intent
is not to impede innovation. Instead, it is to ensure that innovation rests on trust,
resilience, and customer fairness.
630. I am confident that the deliberations in this conference will help us sharpen our
thinking on these issues. I wish you all a productive conference, and I look forward to
the discussions. Thank you. Jai Hind.
*****
7